|
Note that the bridge is oriented at 90 degrees to the nominal thrust vector; either the ship has antigravity/artificial gravity or the bridge crew are going to have a permanent crick in the neck from tilting their heads back to observe out the vision port/window.
The specific impulse is one of the problems with the ship that gives me heartburn. I've spent over 2/3 of my professional career involved in Aerospace with a SF background as a reader going back for 60+ years, and aside from the unproven reactionless thruster now being investigated all other non-existing propulsion methods are either anti/artificial gravity based or extensions of existing designs.
No chemical method of producing thrust is going to exceed the Hydrogen/Fluorine rocket and that ones exhaust is measured in terms of ten's of thousands of meters per second and large amounts of mass providing very short periods of thrust using very large amounts of mass; the ion drive is exceptional with an exhaust measuring in the hundreds of thousands meters per second but using a very small amount of reactive mass in extremely small units per time giving long periods of very small thrust per pound of mass.
There would have to be an extreme change in the laws of physics to provide the constant thrust over time to provide what is apparently at least .3 G's of thrust for the duration of the trips. and you still wind up with very long periods between planet falls.
When the writers of the screenplays ignore the laws of physics they wind up writing fantasy. Therein lies the rationality problem for me in that they are saying this depiction is realistic. Reality just doesn't conform to Hollywood.
However, I still like the ship designs, just need to rework the rationale behind them.
TomW.
|